fordtit

I was asked by a few members to stand in the last NEC elections. Thank God I said no to that idea.

douglas denny

WRONG !

Sorry Steamer, but you are hopelessly wrong with this.

TW can remain a member but not be a UKIP MEP. Simple as that.

If the whip is withdrawn, it means he is not a UKIP MEP - again simple as that.

He might call himself one but he is not.
Further, TW cannot be expelled from the party except through the disciplinary committee. That process cannot go forward without substantive evidence he has committed a misdemeanour which is liable for examination for disciplinary action according to that laid down in the constitution and disc. rules.
Thus far, (as far as I know) there has been no such documentary evidence presented to do that. That is and was, precisely the problem presented to me when I was Party Secretary and everyone was screaming for his blood when the first "reveleations" appeared in the newspapers.

He remains a member of UKIP until his membership lapses when it can be considered for refusal for renewal if the NEC wishes to make that decision; or if he resigns from the party.

DED.

Truthwillout

The claim that Tom Wise had not informed the Party of "the actions against him" is simply a lie.

Tom Wise has clearly published the fact that he kept the then Leader Roger Knapman fully informed and Roger Knapman is on record as confirming that.

In addition it is not true that UKIP MEP's voted to withdraw the whip; only some UKIP MEPs did at an improperly called meeting which excluded known opponents.

In any case UKIP MEPs have no constitutional authority to withdraw the whip.

Tom Wise legally remains a UKIP MEP. Someone is clearly trying to fool the Party for some devious reason.

C_steam

No, I'm not. In fact, you have come to exactly the same conclusion as the one I made in my post.

TW is a UKIP member. TW is an MEP. Therefore, TW calls himself a UKIP MEP. Which is what i wrote in my post " then it is reasonable for Wise to describe himself as a 'UKIP MEP'".

Now then DED, which part of that do you disagree with? And do you really think the media will not claim the same point?

__________________
--------------------------------------------------

Users on ignore list: None. I've got to have people to laugh at.
Cowardly Posters* list: BobFM, Bellatrix.*People who post personal insults then refuse to reply

.

douglas denny

In red above.

It is not reasonable for him to describe himself as a UKIP MEP. In fact it is wrong of him to do so.

DED.
-

Tony Bennett

SponPlague wrote: "Isn't Tom Wise subject to discipline proceedings...?"

REPLY: Answer: Yes. And of course he has actually been disciplined by removal of the Party whip in the House of Thieves. Sorry that should have read: European Parliament.

But not one member of the '16,000-strong' U.K. Independence Party has yet considered that anything Tom Wise has said or done has 'brought the party into disrepute'.

Otherwise they would have commenced disciplinary proceedings by making a complaint to the Party Secretary.

Wouldn't they?

Incidentally, the answer to the riddle about UKIP and Tom Wise, 'How can you be a UKIP M.E.P. and not a UKIP M.E.P. at the same time?' is actually quite simple.

"When you have brought the party into disrepute just a little bit so that you have the Party whip removed, but not so badly as to justify terminating your membership".

That means, to put it even more plainly, that you are an M.E.P. and a member of UKIP. But not a UKIP M.E.P.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

douglas denny

I am not sure of the current state of play with TW and disc.proceedings; but there is one thing for sure to me; there has been no documentary evidence submitted by anyone in UKIP to the Party Secretary (as far as I know) to show a misdemeanour has been committed regarding the original case about his finances. And without evidence one cannot act.
Any disc proceedings are unlikely to be because of the original financial issue.

DED.

Independent UKIP

Please feel free to remind us of the details of that publication by Wise and the confirmation by Knampman, thanks.

So if one or two MEPs weren't at the meeting that means in fact that UKIP MEPs did not vote to withdraw the whip. Even though that is exactly what they did. What formally constitutes an improperly called MEP meeting? You seem to be aware of the formal rules governing MEP meetings & I am not.

In that case precisely who does have the constitutional authority to withdraw the whip of an existing UKIP MEP? What exact constitutional bar is there from UKIP MEPs withdrawing the whip from an existing UKIP MEP?

What is the law which stipulates that Tom Wise is an UKIP MEP? Was Spink, for example still a Conservative MP after he ceased to be under the tory whip? Nobody and I mean absolutely nobody stated he was still a Conservative MP after that.
Since you obviously wouldn't agree that it is yourself who is trying to fool the party could you let us know who is doing so and why. Thanks.

Tony Bennett

Douglas Denny wrote: "And without evidence one cannot act".

REPLY: Unless, of course, it's declaring war on Iraq

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

douglas denny

Ahaaaaah ! That's different!

Tom Wise doesn't have any oil reserves.

DED.